« All Events

  • This event has passed.

October 26-27, 2015 Meeting Materials

Monday, October 26

Agenda

Clean Power Plan and Other Initiatives: Impacts on Portfolio Planning (Celia Johnson, SAG Facilitation) – updated version

Follow-up: SAG Portfolio Planning Process (Annette Beitel, EE SAG Facilitator; Celia Johnson; Karen Lusson, IL AG; Kristol Whatley, Ameren IL):

Program Administrator Portfolio Objectives (Program Administrators)

Stakeholder Suggestions for Current Utility EE Programs (Chris Neme, Energy Futures Group, on behalf of NRDC; Various)

Tuesday, October 27

Agenda

Overview of Portfolio Threshold Issues

Department Portfolio Objectives; Issue 5: Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity Funding (Molly Lunn, the Department)

Threshold Issue 3: 3-Year Electric Goals/Budgets (Keith Goerss, Ameren IL)

Threshold Issue 4: Annual vs. Lifetime Savings (Chris Neme, Energy Futures Group, on behalf of NRDC) – no presentation

Threshold Issue 6: Allocation Across Programs (Keith Goerss, Ameren IL)

Ameren IL Preliminary Potential Study Results (Ingrid Rohmund and Dave Costenaro, AEG)

Follow-up Documents

Flow Chart (final draft; updated 10/25/15)
Project Plan Overview (final draft; updated 10/29/15)
Attachments to Project Plan (final draft; updated 10/29/15)

Attendee List and Action Items (10/30/15; v2)

SAG Tracking Open Issues Spreadsheet (updated 10/30/15)

Follow-up to Action Items

Low Income Discussion

Draft Analysis – Low Income Proportionate Share (David Baker, ERC/UIC on behalf of the Department of Commerce and Economic Opportunity)

Clean Energy Incentive Program – Clean Power Plan

See below for a list of questions and related issues about which EPA is seeking input and ideas (“EPA Input Requests.”) U.S. EPA is hosting several calls to gather input from key stakeholders for further action on the design and implementation details of the Clean Energy Incentive Program. During each call, EPA will provide a brief overview of the Clean Energy Incentive Program and then will invite participants to respond to the questions.  In an effort to hear from all those who wish to speak, EPA will give participants up to three minutes to present their remarks.

Please dial in 10 minutes before your call’s start time to ensure your participation.  See below for call details:

1) Focus: Potential CEIP Project Providers – This call will focus on hearing ideas and input from potential project providers such as energy efficiency providers in low-income communities, wind and solar power providers, and electric utilities.

Date: Tuesday, November 10, 2015
Time: 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. EST
Participant Dial-in Number: (877) 290-8017
Conference ID#: 72558829

2) Focus: Potential CEIP Project Partners – This call will focus on hearing ideas and input from groups that have a general interest in CEIP projects such as environmental justice groups, community groups, local governments, tribes, and environmental non-governmental organizations.

Date: Monday, November 23, 2015
Time: 7:00 – 9:00 p.m. EST
Participant Dial-in Number: (877) 290-8017
Conference ID#: 72559715

3) Focus: General – This call will focus on hearing ideas from stakeholders who were unable to attend one of the first three sessions.

Date: Tuesday, December 1, 2015
Time: 3:00 – 5:00 p.m. EST
Participant Dial-in Number: (877) 290-8017
Conference ID#: 72558409

In addition to these conference calls, EPA invites written responses to the attached questions to the non-regulatory docket established for this purpose. EPA will accept input, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2015-0734 through December 15, 2015. You may use one of the following methods:

  • Go to www.regulations.gov and follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
  • Send comments by e-mail to [email protected].
  • Fax your comments to: (202) 566-9744.
  • Mail your comments to:

EPA Docket Center, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code: 28221T
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, DC  20460

EPA Input Requests

What should EPA consider when defining criteria, terms and requirements under the CEIP?

  • What definition(s) of ‘low-income community’ should be required for eligible energy-efficiency (EE) projects?
  • What criteria should be used to define eligible wind and solar projects, as well as eligible EE projects implemented in low-income communities? (e.g., by sector (residential, commercial, etc.) or by geography (where a project takes place and who benefits from it))
  • What should be the evaluation, measurement and & verification (EM&V) requirements for eligible projects; the requirements for M&V reports of quantified megawatt-hour (MWh); and the requirements for verification reports from an independent verifier?
  • How could EPA set criteria for states, tribes and territories for whom goals have not yet been established in the final Clean Power Plan’s Emission Guidelines (EGs) to participate in the CEIP?

The following three questions have been posed by stakeholders:

  • What commencement date is appropriate for a project to qualify as eligible for the CEIP?
  • How should ‘commence construction’ of an eligible wind or solar project and ‘commence operations’ of an eligible low-income EE project be defined?
  • Should CEIP allowances or emission reduction credits (ERCs) be available for projects in jurisdictions without affected entities (e.g. tribal lands and states without EGUs).  If so how should the CEIP mechanism be designed to address these areas?

What should EPA consider regarding the timing and distribution of allowances under the CEIP?

  • How should the 300 million short ton CO2 emissions-equivalent matching pool be allocated among states participating in the CEIP?
  • How should the 300 million short ton matching pool be split between the two reserves: one for wind/solar, one for low-income EE?
  • When should EPA allocate matching allowances or emission reduction credits (ERCs) to a state, and when should awards from these allocations be made to eligible project providers?
  • How should matching allowances or ERCs that are allocated to a state but not awarded to eligible projects be redistributed among other states with unmet demand for matching allowances or ERCs, and when should this redistribution take place?

What should EPA consider when designing the mechanics of the CEIP?

  • What are the appropriate mechanisms a state (in the case of a state plan) or EPA (in the case of a federal plan) should use to review project submittals and issue early action allowances or ERCs?
  • How should the 300 million short ton CO2 emissions-equivalent matching pool be converted into ERCs, which are based on MWh?·         What mechanisms should EPA consider for maintaining the stringency of rate-based emission standards during the compliance periods to account for the issuance of early action ERCs for MWh generated or avoided in 2020 and/or 2021?

Details

Start:
October 26, 2015 @ 8:00 am
End:
October 27, 2015 @ 5:00 pm